Dr Joe Kiff Archive - 2

aka A Wikia Contributor

Contents

MediaWiki and Wikia software will do anything in the world you want it to, except editing; you just need to know how to work it. I'm not sure I have the knowledge to run a bot, but, being a 16 year old with too much time on her hands, I know how to work special pages. I found the list of double redirects here, of which there were about 400 (this will show the exact number, subtract one edit for my response here). From there it was just a bunch of consistency. Special:Specialpages should be a page you check often, daily if possible, to do minor "cleaning up" edits. Christine

I need a sysop, and someone who actually knows about psychology =D. On this page there are images that are not used in any namespace. If you can find a use for them in any articles, you may want to add them, or delete any unnecessary ones. On this page there are redirects that lead to non-existant pages. For these, I'm unsure of where to direct them to, so someone with knowledge of the articles on this wiki would be best for this job. If those can't be used, they can be left to create wanted pages and therefore give editors an idea for projects to work on, or they can be deleted.

As for my interest in psychology, I guess I am, but I don't think it's something I'd be thinking of career-wise. Editing wikis in general is just a hobby of mine, and I'm rather anal about keeping the special pages that control the functionality of the wiki and searching as clean as possible to make searching easiest, whether I know anything about the topic of the wiki or not. I'm a sysop at the RuneScape wiki, and yes, its an online game, but, a wiki is a wiki is a wiki. I've learned a lot from editing there, and I'd love to help out here in any way possible, but as for content editing I've never been very good. Do you by any chance have a speedy deletion template and/or category? I didn't see one when I looked in the template namespace. ChristineYes, I'm remembering to date this time. I need to set up a sig here.. 23:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Everything is all set up for speedy deletions. I've created Template:D which can be added to pages to be deleted. It can be added to a page with:

I would mark all the redirects for deletion to make things easier for you, but then again it seems rather trivial and/or redundant because they're all listed out for you on the Broken redirects special page, hence its already pretty easy anyways. And at least that way, with your knowledge of the articles here, you can see if there are proper articles to redirect them to. ChristineTalk 22:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought...you might want to develop a "Speedy deletion" "policy" and process so that it doesn't all fall on your shoulders. For example, maybe have a place for people to comment on speedy deletion and then delete the page within a specific time period if two admins agree...I'm just thinking that setting up a process now while the work is small may come in handy when the site gets much larger and has much more activity. regards. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Over at Genealogy, I put together some Bot code to fix images. Given an article refering to images on Wikipedia or Commons, the Bot scans for the images and automagically uploads them to the site. I successfully tested this on Biological symbiosis. The code will work not just on WP source articles, but snippets of articles or original articles that simply reference Commons or WP image names that are not yet on your wikia.

It reads the article, and for each Image: statement, it sees if the image exists on your server. If it fails to find it, it first checks commons, and uploads it and the description to your wikia. If commons doesn't have it, it tries en:WP.

Obviously, if the article already has images uploaded, or if it has no images, then the Bot does nothing and moves on to the next article in the list.

The list of articles to scan can be derived from the "what links here" for template enWP. Alternately, I could scan ever single page in your wikia.

OK Joe. I will do a test run of a few dozen pages in the next few days, then do a volume run in the wee hours when server load is low. The bot is throttled so that it doesn't monopolize the server, so this may take a few days to get through the entire wikia. If anything looks wrong, the way to pull the plug is to simply block PhloxBot. Regards, ~Phlox 08:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

>>>> Query copied from Phlox talk on genealogy <<<<

Are you happy it is going OK? Like you say it is hard to monitor it from our end as we cant get onto it to do "what links here". I am trusting that its doing the job correctly. I have looked at the list of uploaded files and while there is the odd one or two titles I find unexpected they are probably linked to articles. Certainly the speed of the site is not noticeably impaired for users.We are really grateful for your help here as it is clearly saving us a lot of time.Dr Joe Kiff 07:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The processing is satisfactory. For images, "what links here" cannot be used as you noted. Instead, for any image that you are curious about, use the section at the bottom of its Image: page entitled "Links" EG: Image:Plastic 3d glasses.jpg notes in the Links section that it is used by Anaglyph image.

I see your articles are also missing a considerable number of templates. If you are happy with the results of the image run, I will perform a subsequent run to pull the templates over. What are the downsides? Some of these may suffer from the htmltidy problem. Overall though, I think once the template run is done, your wikia will have a bit more polish to it. ~Phlox 07:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to change Template:wp. The purpose on Genealogy is to create links to Wikipedia articles in cases where no Genealogy article exists. You may instead want all of these to be red links, in which case I can do a pass and remove them, or you can immediately achieve the same by forcing the template to always generate a local link. Template:wpcat performs a similar function for wikipedia categories which may not be relevant to your wikia. ~Phlox 05:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

With Template:wp it is best if the links remain red so we can copy over the pages in time and edit them for our purposes. It is best to generate local links with Template:wpcat as many of the catlinks on WP wont be relevant here.Dr Joe Kiff 07:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Okey dokey- The bot won't insert them from the E's onward, and those already with them- I'll alter the templates.

It is a problem we come up against at genealogy. I'll do what you say, but question whether it scales- at some point you depart your domain. In your case, are you really going to have an article on Chicha? (linked to from template Template:Alcoholic beverages) I don't have any great answers- from the standpoint of wikia as a business proposition, I don't particularly like the idea of sending eyeballs to WP..., can't red text them because the content doesn't belong. Can't black text them because obscure references deserve to be explained.... ~Phlox 07:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a vandalization that hid behind a flood of changes created by phloxbot on 11/7. Apparently, a community team member can assign a bot flag. I have put in a request at w:User_talk:CatherineMunro#PhloxBot_Needs_a_Bot_flag. Please post there stating you approve the request. ~Phlox 17:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I had the same question concerning the vandalization mentioned on Jack Phoenix's talk page (ref'd on Catherine's page). I poked around your logs, but perhaps Jack's cleanup activities removed all traces of its existence. I was unable to find anything. Supposedly it happenned on the 7th. ~Phlox 18:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A database glitch on wikia caused whatever note you left on catherine's page to go to bit heaven. Could you repost thanks. ~Phlox 00:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Phloxbot now has a Bot flag on your wikia. If in the future you request any large volume run, you may want to alert your folks that they can now hide PhloxBot's edits so they can easily monitor edits. ~Phlox 04:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks Phlox. We will be in touch.Dr Joe Kiff 06:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to archive old talk page threads other than creating a sub-page, Talk:Article Name-Archive#?
Also, is there a policy on this or do you think we need one?
Finally, do you think we need a policy/procedure regarding deletion of pages? and if so, would you like me to draft one?
regards. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 21:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Joe, take a look at [[1]] for my draft on a policy and procedure regarding archiving. If this is ok, it can be set up (by you I'd guess) as our official policy and procedure and then I'd go ahead and bring over the redlinked articles we need connected to this...once that is done, I will take a stab at a P&P on page deletions. regards. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 00:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Joe, I believe that with the move, the entire talk page gets archived, so that current discussions will have to be copied and pasted back into the talk page. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 13:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Point six on moving says this...but I can add more if you think that's needed. If the page is ok, you could then copy it to a help page or policy page and I will then clean up the redlinks (just let me know where the official page is located.) regards. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 17:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If the draft needs more work, let me know what you want done. If it is ok, it can be put onto the help page and set up as a Psychwiki policy...just let me know the page and I will then work on eliminating the redlinks by adding the appropriate references. regards...Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 00:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Joe, I am having a problem editing. When I make changes to the article Circulatory system some get saved and then suddenly, the article is back in its original state. I am trying to remove some of the redlinks....Also, when I've tried to add an article on Sphygmomanometer it won't save my material. I get an error message. What is the problem? regards, Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 17:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 18:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am having these troubles too at the moment I suspect it is a problem with the server not updating quickly as the changes seem to appear after a wait.You can see that the changes are recorded on the recent changes listing. Good work recently on the template front Dr Joe Kiff 18:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oooh... I'm a bit too paranoid to use my real name, sorry. {='( Anyway, I'm just a teenager who really knows nothing about psychology, and I'm just a little interested in it so I'm looking around a bit... I won't be talking much other than this though so I won't really be signing much anyway, so not using my real name hopefully won't be too much of a problem. I probably won't edit much either, as I know nothing about psychology so far--though I will fix anything I can, as this is a trade-a-fact website, and I'd hate not to help out.... yeah. See you around! =D --NOTASTAFFGPT(talk)(eating) 08:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Art. User:Remi Oyen did it some time ago aand it has taken me a while to find it and work out how to change the old one. I think it makes the page look a lot cleaner. Im thinking it could do with a frame around it what do you think? Thought we would just live with it for a while and see as we get used to it. Dr Joe Kiff 07:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

At this moment, I'd like to see a frame of some sort, but nothing too bold...maybe a light shadow-frame of some sort. Well, let's see what others think over time...no rush. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 13:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Joe! I just responded to your post on my Central talk page, and came by to see how things are going here. I'm always really impressed by how much work you do on this wiki every day. I have a couple ideas that might help you out, if you're interested. How are things going on the wiki? Is there something you're trying to do that I can help with? -- Danny (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming over . What ideas do you have up your sleeve? Dr Joe Kiff 23:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a few things that I think may get in the way of a new person becoming a contributor. Right now, it looks like the main goal for the site is to get more people involved. You've got almost 22,000 pages, which is huge. So I think it's worth asking -- two years into the project, with 22,000 pages, and you're on the site every day -- why aren't more people contributing?

There are a lot of possible answers to that question. I have a couple ideas, based on what I know about wikis.

First up, I think the templates you're using at the top of each page are a little overwhelming. You've got more than thirty links at the top of each page, in four different type sizes. That's sitting directly between the title of the article and the content, so it's not easy for a reader to tell where to start reading. It might just be me, so feel free to ask other people if they find that off-putting. If you like, I could give you some pointers on different ways to build that navigation structure, so it doesn't have to sit on the top of each page.

The other thing -- and you're not going to believe I'm saying this -- is that you have too many pages. This wiki isn't unique in that way; I've seen some other wikis that fall into the same trap. It's really satisfying to create pages, and to see your wiki grow bigger and bigger... but at a certain point, you have to stop creating new pages, and focus on editing and expanding the pages that you have.

Right now, you've got twelve different stubs categories, with more than 3,800 pages listed as "stubs". You've got thousands of articles copied from Wikipedia, which are filled with redlinks, broken templates and category tags for categories that don't exist on this wiki. And looking at your stats, you're still creating about 15-20 new articles every day.

When new readers come to the site, they'll probably browse around for a while. It's really typical for new readers to hit "random page" a few times, just to get an idea of what's covered on the wiki.

I think it's a good exercise for a wiki founder to try that yourself, every once in a while, to see what kind of things come up when you hit "random page" ten times. How many of those ten pages feel "finished" to you? How many are stubs? If all you knew about Psychology Wiki was those ten pages, would you be interested in helping with the project?

Let me know what you think... I'm really impressed with your dedication to the wiki, and I'd love to see more people getting involved, to help you build the site up. -- Danny (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Joe, Interesting and good points. If you can suggest ways I can help, please let me know. I've been focusing, recently, on working on pages to elim all redlinks either by deleting the [[ ]] not needed or by creating linked pages, if relevant. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 00:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Danny. Thanks for your thoughtful comments. It has been a mystery to me why more people havent become involved - but I have such a clear model in my head of how all this knowledge fits together that I am sustained by that. I am taking the long view and for my part I am working to a masterplan. If I had my way I would be building this in private at this stage for the reasons you point out, it can look unfinished and there is a lot of pruning to be done and it is still only a draft of what it will be. But I still dont quite understand why others do not contribute more. There is plenty for them to do. I am hoping that they recognise that it is an academic wiki and that raises the bar around contribution. That is off putting and daunting in one way, but will help maintain quality in the long run. I still think that perhaps the qualified people who might contribute, may think that an academic wiki is a contradiction in terms and do not come on board as it is not officially sanctioned. There was talk at wikia of advertising it more but that has not really been followed up. My own preference is to develop the structure further and then approach the scientific community to persuade them to engage with it as a learned text which is really my view of why it will be valuable and different from Wikipedia. That point is about 2 years away.

Im more concerned about usability and thought your observation on the links at the top of the page were spot on. What suggestions would you have for improving that situation?Dr Joe Kiff 20:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

To understand why people don't contribute, you have to think about why people would -- what motivates people to contribute to a wiki. People won't contribute just because it's a worthwhile topic, or because there's a lot of work to do.

For the most part, people contribute to wikis because it feels like their contribution makes a difference. If they're going to spend time working on the site, then that work needs to feel meaningful. Otherwise, it feels like a waste of time, and they won't bother.

There are three things that a wiki founder can do to make people feel that their contributions are meaningful:

Social: You welcome every new contributor, and make them feel welcome. When a contributor adds a lot, you tell them how much you appreciate their work. If it looks like someone is trying to do something, but can't quite figure it out, you ask on their talk page if you can help.

Design: You design a site that actively encourages people to contribute. On the front page, you show people what needs to be done, and how they can help. You highlight your best pages, so they can see what a really good page looks like.

Role modeling: You contribute to the wiki in the way that you would like to see other people participate. That shows other contributors the kind of participation you're looking for.

From what I can tell, you guys are very good with welcoming people, and you're definitely a good role model for participation. I think the area that doesn't feel as welcoming here is the design. The front page reflects the masterplan that's in your head for what the site is supposed to be like in the future -- but it doesn't explain to people what they can do right now to help.

The design also suggests that this is a textbook, with links to "Books" leading to "Chapters". But that's not actually how people use wikis, either as readers or contributors. A wiki isn't meant to be read "cover to cover". It's meant to be browsed or searched -- starting with one point of interest, and then using links and categories to lead people on to more.

My overall suggestion is that you check out some of the other wikis on Wikia, and see how their main pages are organized. Three good examples are Muppet Wiki, Memory Alpha and FFXIclopedia. Those topics are obviously different from yours -- those are TV shows and video games, so the tone is going to be different. Try to put that aside for now, and just look at the way they organize their content. Look at what they choose to display on the front page, and how they invite people in to participate.

If you want a site where you can work privately for the next two years without anybody getting in your way, then this is great -- you have all the time in the world. If you'd like to have more people join you in that work, then I think it's worth looking at some wikis with active communities, and seeing what you can learn from them. -- Danny (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again Danny. I am going to have to think about this. To me this is primarily a new kind of textbook, which is organised around a comprehensive knowledge structure. It has many of the advantages of a wiki (so you can move around and browse) but also overcomes some of its limitations (so it is structured, and comprehensive and able to be peer reviewed). It remains to be seen whether or not it falls between two stools we shall see. But in the long run there is a balance to be struck.

You didnt say what your ides were on the links at the top of the pageDr Joe Kiff 23:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

One idea for the links is that you can move those to the sidebar -- you can edit MediaWiki:Sidebar and put those in there. Then you don't have to have them up at the top of every page.

I think your idea of creating a hybrid between a wiki and a textbook is interesting -- and as you say, you'll see how it works. I think it would be valuable for you to look closely at the wikis I linked to, and see how those are organized. If you're going to create a new kind of wiki, then I think it would be helpful to understand how wikis work. It's like the cliche about playing jazz -- you can break the rules, but first you need to know what the rules are. -- Danny (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My reversion of the article was prompted by an anonymous IP blanking various sections of this article with no explanation, usually if it's fair play they enter an explanation the 2nd time. I had no evidence to prove it wasn't malicious so I kept the article intact. Cheers. --{{subst:User:Charitwo/SigX}} 19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ppiotr I have looked at this before and couldnt really understand what is involved. I think that it will make indexing and searching the site easier. Is it the same idea as semantic web? I think in here is also a way of treating the data as a neural network and a basis in the long term of an expert system so I am interested in exploring all such avenues as long as they do not distract too much from the main task of gathering the structure and content together for the moment. If the extensions are activated what will we have to do? Dr Joe Kiff 18

10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Semantic_MediaWiki extension is indeed an implementation of the semantic web idea, at least according to how Wikipedia defined those two terms. If the extension is activated, you'd have to add annotations to your articles in order to take advantage of it (for wikis that organizes its info via lots of templates/info boxes, the annotation can be added via the templates to greatly reduce the amount of actual work, although "null edits" are still needed on the articles to update the server data. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with the general subject of psychology, so I can't answer your questions in the middle yet. Full documentation of the extension can be found here. Hopefully you'll find it useful to your wiki. -User:PanSola(talk/history) 18:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If we implement it in testing mode what advantages do we get out of the box, or do we have to put the work in? I find it hard to grasp just how it works. At the core of this wiki is a hierachical structure of terms and and concepts derived from a controlled vocabulary.An example would be:

MainPage

Category:Applied psychology:

Category:Clinical psychology

Category:Clinical:Types of problem

Category:Depression

Clinical Depression Article

Depression:Risk factors

Depression:Depression in women

Depression:Depression in men

Depression and physical illness

How would this set of relationships be encoded? Dr Joe Kiff 19:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking at the user manual you linked to but it isnt very enlightening for a nontechie is there anwhere else it is easily explined.

If we implemnt it are there penalties in terms of time taken for pages to upload etc?Dr Joe Kiff 20:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, SMW isn't something that is meant to completely replace the category system. In fact, it should not affect a well-developed/well-thought-out category system at all. SMW works best at complementing categories by taking over stuff that would be awkward (but possible) when done via categories. As a not-very-technical example, one might be interested in querying for a list of journals that are published either monthly or quarterly in French, and have been around for more than 10 years. By ensuring that the corresponding wiki articles about each journal is annotated with their publication frequency, language, and age (or rather, the year they started), I can easily write a SMW query that produces the list, and automatically updates itself as more journals matching the criteria are documented by this wiki. If each research topic is annotated with the scientists who has published work being referenced, the SMW will allow you to easily look up all topics a particular scientist has researched (or that several scientists have collaborated on). It is my hope that you'll find even more creative uses of this extension that specifically helps organizing psychology-related knowledge. The SMW is about relationship between information/concepts, some of which might not correspond to wiki articles, and some wiki articles might not correspond to anything that can be naturally related to.

In the end, it takes work to annotate the information/relationships. With a wiki this established, it may appear to be a daunting task. However, I hope you will find some advantage provided by the SMW so that at the end of the day you'd think the work put into annotating the relationships is worth it. It wouldn't take pages longer to upload/load. -User:PanSola(talk/history) 20:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets implement it on this wiki. I will have some time over Easter to get my head round it and have a play 23:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that SMW's categories are NOT categories in the common sense, but classes. That means that you have to rethink the whole category tree and do subclassing instead. In example this might look similar to

Personally I don't like this kind of "categories" and prefer to see the category system to be independent. In that case you can define classes using [[rdfs:subClassOf:: <class> ]] for defining sub classes (ie. [[rdfs:sublcassOf::Human]] in Article [[man]]) and [[rdfs:instanceOf:: <class> ]] for defining instances of a class (ie. [[rdfs:instanceOf::Man]] in Article [[Sigmund Freud]]). To clarify the difference: if there are more from the same kind, then its a class. If there is only one, then its a instance.

Thanks for the post! :-) No, I'm not doing a paper on snails an habituation. I am gathering some papers at the moment on non-associative learning in general to incorporate some of that info (hopefully) into a paper I hope to start soon. My focus is still on the integration of psychology. Hope things are going well for you! Jaywin 19:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it is not a problem. I thought someone blanked a page on your site, but it turned out someone was moving a page. So, no harm done. Thank you for such a kind welcome. :) GlacierWolf 01:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This move looks like a typo, but I don't know anything about psychology. Is it correct? Christine 02:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been a bit busy with other things, and the RuneScape wiki, so I nearly forgot about Psychology. I'll try to keep editing here though, as long as I can remember. Thanks :) Christine 14:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Joe, if you look at the recent edits, User:Hurr has made some vandalism-edits that I cannot seem to fix [[4]] If you can repair the damage, I'd appreciate it. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 12:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears he moved many articles to Hugger...I am not sure how to roll that back.

I've noticed your broken redirect (pages which redirect to deleted or non-existent pages) list is quite large. Would you prefer deleting them en-masse when you get a chance or should I start tagging them for deletion so you and the other admin folks know to delete them later?

Yes I had noticed the situation! I hope you can resolve it amicably, although it is an area that obviously arouses strong passions. Dr Joe Kiff 21:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my hope is that once the block is over, the editor will work on adding material, references, sources, citations etc and not continue the behavior that led to the block in the first place. I'd like to work with that editor, as I've worked with others here in the past, to improve controversial material. Glad you are keeping an eye on things. Thanks!! Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 21:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As you have said here, you are aware of the article on this Wikia about "Advocates for Children in Therapy" (ACT). Before I started editing the article last week, the article was defamatory of its subject. There were numerous false statements of fact, opinions presented as fact, selectivity in the information presented to maintain a (negative) point of view, and unsubstantiated assertions of both fact and opinion. In short, it was a deliberate "hatchet job" masquerading as an encyclopaedic entry.

The article at issue has a history. The one here is nearly identical in form and substance to the one on Wikipedia just before the creator of that one was banned for "edit-warring", spamming, "point-of-view" pushing, unsubstantiated and ad hominem attacks, and self-interested gaming of the Wiki project. That editor had brought his real-world disputes to Wikipedia, and even before he was banned there for it, he started using Psychology Wikia as an alternative venue for his personal interests.

The ACT article was initially a vehicle to attack and discredit other people in a widely viewed and respected forum. It was eventually deemed an inappropriate use of Wikipedia and made to change. While some of the principals of ACT wanted the article deleted altogether, other Wikipedians wanted it retained though changed to a more honest and neutral account. Those of us in the latter camp prevailed and the article has been modified by non-ACT editors with properly sourced and substantiated information, and it has been relatively stable and uncontroversial for some time.

A few days ago, I undertook here to remove the defamatory material and provide the same stable and uncontroversial account as now appears on Wikipedia. To do so, I started with the very same Wikipedia version, tweaked it to conform to the Wikia article space, and posted it here. Literally within minutes, my change was reverted by the editor who created the hatchet job version. After two more cycles of this, I was "blocked" from further editing by that same editor who, as you know, happens to have been made one of your administrators (ironically described as "editing helper"). In the meantime, this administrator/editor added more false and defamatory material to the article, along with specious "citations" of sources.

With the block now lifted, I know that within minutes of attempting to modify the article again, I will be reverted again and likely will be blocked. Therefore, I am instead coming directly to you, Dr Kiff, as the person most responsible for what is on Psychology Wikia. Firstly, I ask for a public statement here as to whether Psychology Wikia articles can be used for defamatory attacks on living individuals and non-commercial organizations.

Secondly, I ask that you do a side-by-side reading of the two versions of the article on "Advocates for Children in Therapy". I request that afterwards you post here your professional judgment and reasoning as to which version of the article is preferable to the other, especially in light of your position on defamation.

My apologies for this but I am away for a while. Can I ask you to work with Dr. Becker-Weidman to try to reach a balanced conclusion via email as I know that this is an area that causes a lot of controversy. Obviously we do not intend to defame people and I hope that with good will on all sides that progress can be made. Dr Joe Kiff 08:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad to work with you to add sourced material and improve this. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 09:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You are then refusing a request to intervene and choose between two obviously incompatible versions of the article? You say "we do not intend to defame people", but you are not willing to investigate and exercise your professional judgment and reasoning on whether one version is preferable over another? It is very hard to make "progress" under such conditions. 206.81.65.9 15:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Joe, that is a good suggestion. I was about to suggest something like that.

Dear 206.81.69.9, I suggest that we work via e-mail as Joe suggests. If there are additions to make with sources and references, you can send those to me and and then we can discuss those and add as appropriate. Same goes for any material already in the article that you think needs editing in some form. I think it important that material in articles be factual and, where appropriate, have sources to support statements. I think this would be a good way to proceed so that we can improve the article. I look forward to hearing from you and working with you. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 17:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Dr Kiff's answers to the questions I've raised. Just saying "we do not intend to defame people" is not even close to a full answer to any of my questions. 206.81.65.9 19:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the dawning of a new day has not resulted in any new answers, I see. There is no indication of even when an answer might be forthcoming. Perhaps a more blunt statement will get a response: Psychology Wiki(a) is publishing untrue and defamatory materials about living persons and existing organizations. It has shown a certain intentionality, if not malice, by not permitting edits to remove the defamations or otherwise acting when the situation has been brought to the attention of a responsible party. It has ignored an entreaty to reverse the situation, effectively accepting and perpetuating the defamations and falsehoods. Is Psychology Wiki(a) going to do anything about continuing the defamation it is publishing? 206.81.65.9 07:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A second suggestion, then, would be, if you feel there is material in the article that is untrue or not suitable, let me know, as Dr. Kiff suggested, and we can communicate by e-mail about the specific statements you feel should be changed or edited and then we can edit as necessary. We certainly do not want untrue or false material in articles. Reviewing specific lines or statements would be most productive at this point.Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 10:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the sun has set on another day, and there has been no response from you, Dr Kiff. It is beginning to appear that Psychology Wiki(a) is actually in favour of publishing and protecting this particular defamation. Your silence is deafening! 206.81.65.9 23:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Kiff responded to your concerns with, "I ask you to work with Dr. Becker-Weidman to try to reach a balanced conclusion via email as I know that this is an area that causes a lot of controversy. Obviously we do not intend to defame people and I hope that with good will on all sides that progress can be made." And I concur that we want truthful and accurate information in articles. A good way to resolve, as Dr. Kiff suggested, is for you to e-mail me and then we can work to improve the article. A good place to begin, then, is with the specific statements or lines that you feel are problematic so that we can make any necessary clarifications and corrections, with appropriate sources and citations.

Dr Kiff, why are you hiding behind the very person who wrote the defamations? He speaks more on your talk page than you do. As my initial post here outlined quite clearly, there can be no value in speaking with this person, least of all on matters of substance and in private (i.e., by email), while the defamations remain untouched in full public view. There is no secret where objections to the article lie; they can be seen easily by anyone reading it. I asked that you, Dr Kiff, as a responsible party, compare it side by side with the Wikipedia version on the same subject and give a professional and editorial judgment which version is preferable. What can be the possible reason for not doing so, given the seriousness of the matter? Each day that passes takes it toll on reputations, including yours and Psychology Wikia's I should think. Toodling off to slumber now, and hoping to hear from you later this morning, 206.81.65.9 01:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear Joe,
An article was added Mindfulness of breath that should be deleted...but when I attempt to delete it I get a syntax error. Do you know what is the problem?
Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 13:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Art. I have removed it now. Ther was no problem so maybe it was a temporary glitch. Dr Joe Kiff 13:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joe, I just wanted to make sure you see Forum:Wikia Monaco skin. I think the "Sapphire" skin might work best for you, or maybe one with a bit less colour? The easiest modification is to change the blue parts of the skin to something more subtle. I'd be glad to help with that if you need it -- sannse (talk) 11:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Sannse asked me to help you resolve the issues with your navigation templates. Something about a gap? Can you get me a link to a page with this problem? --Uberfuzzy 01:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Glad to see you back at work here.
There are two articles by User:Watchmaker that appear to be exclusively original research and without any basis in the literature I can find when I do a search:
Vicarious autotheismFundamental focus
I am thinking that they should be deleted if acceptable citations and references cannot be found. What is your opinion on this?
Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 13:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Art I had exactly the same thought. This is an academic site and it is important that all concepts are grounded in the literature. I think however Watchmaker may have something important to say about the effects of being involved in research/therapy and I would be interested in his personal account, which might include his concepts and definitions, but I dont think they warrant a page/article each themselves without references. I hope that helps. Dr Joe Kiff 17:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. I will try to communicate and work with Watchmaker about this and move the material to a different location with him.

Hello! I contribute to the Programmer's Wiki, whose sysop (Drawde83) recently spotted your computer science article. We had a lengthy discussion here about how much cooperation we should propose. As we never reached a consensus, how much cooperation would you (the community) be comfortable with?

Specifically, we want to collaborate with you on all programming-related articles. I would personally like to maintain only one copy of each in-depth chunk of content, with each chunk hosted on the most relevant wiki and mutual links tying the various chunks together. Drawde's idea is best explained by him.

An immediate community response is not necessary, as I know consensus-building can take a long time. However, I would appreciate an immediate indication of your personal thoughts and, less importantly, some estimation of how much time the discussion should take. --Jesdisciple (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this fits our criteria for an encyclopedia article. I've left a message on the talk page and wonder if this does not better belong on the primary editor's talk page as a piece of very interesting original research?
Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 14:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

In as much as its a published system I thought it was OK and I have said to Miklos about the need to integrate it into the literature. He is after some feedback and I hope readers will oblige. It is interesting to see what is going on internationally in the name of psychology as well Dr Joe Kiff 18:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I'd not realized it was a published system. I will try to find some references to incorporate and hope that Miklos, as an expert in this, would also post a few. Thanks. Art Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 18:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joe. I don't know if you'd be interested or not, but I just read online, (and posted it at upcoming conferences), that there is going to be a conference for The European Human Behaviour & Evolution Association at the University of St. Andrews in the UK April 6-8, (More information). The lineup of speakers is a pretty impressive list for that particular field. Just thought I'd give you a heads up in case you might be interested, since you live in the UK. Have a good one :-) Jaywin 23:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you had transferred the Double Bind entry from the general Wikipedia to Psychology Wiki and then reverted it to what looked like an early version you had written. May I ask why?

One of the problems with DBT is that it has been mostly neglected in the last 50 years. If you read Minimal Requirements for a Theory of Schizophrenia--(in Steps to an Ecology of Mind)--you will see why. Bateson (and his colleagues)were talking about more than one issue. 1. They were NOT saying that double binds cause an organic brain disorder, but that systematic double binds (especially in childhood) could cause a perpetual state of confused communication, i.e. patterns of confusion (which is something very stressful, even traumatic) that could sound like the word salad of "schizophrenia" 2. At the same time they were using the paradigm of cybernetics/complex systems theory, something Bateson helped develop in the 1940s and that Lawrence Bale finally described properly only in 1995, contrasting it with the paradigm of classical science--see his Gregory Bateson, Cybernetics and the Social/Behavioral Sciences.

When DBT is approached from the paradigm of classical science it doesn't compute. But note that as early as 1959 Bateson said "the proposed classification of learning and/or context is an ordering of what to the Newtonian looks like chaos..." pp 251-252, and so in Minimal Requirements Bateson was 3. making an analysis of the foundations of scientific thought.

Another matter is that because Bateson did not describe double bind methodically ("In the nature of the case, an explorer can never know what he is exploring until it has been explored" and "It was only in late 1969 that I became fully conscious of what I had been doing." p. xvi Intro to Steps...), his thinking can be understood only by a very slow and careful reading and rereading, jumping back and forth and connecting concepts. And he expected his listeners to do their own thinking, not simply look for answers. Speed reading Bateson is impossible.

I expect you want to know my scientific credentials.
I was raised by 2 anthropologists (comparative linguistics and ethnology); due to their professional relationship we children grew up in a milieu of scientific discussion and were expected to understand and adhere to scientific methodology from earliest childhood. However, due to the intense doublebinding originating in my mother's family system I opted out of science as a profession--to do recovery. So I have an insider's understanding of double bind. (Bateson made instant sense to me).

(Please note the double bind that says that one can't know about something one has lived with all one's life if one hasn't studied it for a post-graduate degree--even if double bind theory is not being taught).

Seeing the obstacles in making progress concerning defining DBT I have been corresponding with MC Bateson (his daughter) who has written and given talks on double bind. I let her know you had opened a page on Psychology Wiki.
Another problem is that many of the early articles either are no longer in print or difficult to access. However, if you read Bale you will see why a better understanding of complex systems theory is urgently needed. Classical science defined situations with multiple variables as outside the purview of science. And so we have lost 30 years in delays in understanding ecosystems including the global system, and including human ecosystems such as cultures--and the economy.
If you have any objections to what is written in the Wikipedia entry please let me know. Feedback is another key element of self-regulating,self-correcting, self-healing systems--Margaret9mary 02:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

would you please explain to me why I couldn't go on editing the transposition of my comments to you on the discussion page of Double Bind Interaction? The field was going blue and wouldn't let me add or change anything so I assume I committed some editing faux pas. --Margaret9mary 22:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your question to Dr. K, it appears that your comments are on the talk page. Dr. Becker-WeidmanTalk 23:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to build a kokology related page over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokology while i have a reasonable knowledge
of kokology and psycology related subjects its very hard to study this subject specificly and they have very complexed rules there
i am trying to learn specificly to create questions and also to target them at critical unconcious submordalites so i am looking for some help from someone skilled to make an article on wikia i find it much more comftable to chat on irc also if possible scatterp@freenode/#wikia

Could you tell me with panic attacks/anxiety attacks does confidence building help ?
is confidence something that can be split up and looked at as internal confidence and external confidence
i.e could some one having anxiety attacks have confidence as the "cause" but appear confident from an external perspective

ps trying to contact the japanese kokology team via universitys
--Scatterp 17:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Got an email saying that a bunch of our pages had been vandalised, so I came along to clean them up. I think I've fixed everything, so it looks like the changes only lasted a couple of hours. One thing though is that the vandal moved the pages and I had to move them back via a copy and paste method and then delete the renamed pages. Only in hindsight did I realise this means we've lost the revision history, although all of the content is there. If necessary we can undelete, copy and paste the text etc back to the vandalised article and then remove the text back again, though this seems a lot of work.

Judging by the vandals use of English on defacing the mathematics page "Math is Gay" they're probably an American kid, which means I'm less likely to track their IP address and go to kick 17 different shades of crap out of them. But this is only because the airfares are expensive for this type of revenge :o)

Sorry that I've been entirely absent from the Wiki. I've had my hands full trying to get my head around this neuropsychology PhD and have also been unwell with depression recently. Am just about starting to get my head sorted out again and have lots of other things I need to get on with once I'm better, but would like to participate again if I can. Its 2 years or so since you started it now, so if you'd like to meet up at some point, we can discuss the future of the wiki and where you'd like it to go. Assuming your still in the West Midlands that is...

Hello, Joe. Some of the vandalised pages were on my watchlist, so I had a look. You might like to check recent deletions, because they may include perfectly good pages of yours that had been moved. I've reported the "wheels" vandal to staff; it bothered Genealogy a few hours ago and got a year's blockage within 6 minutes. — Robin Patterson(Talk) 04:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)